Resht in peace

[Paulus]

RIP James Bond, best ever person who played the part. Fantastic in both The Hunt for Red October and even better in The Untouchables.

The Untouchables is a very very good film, and showed just how good an actor Connery was.
There is also a film made in 1965 called The Hill. He is very good in that also.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If I remember correctly the original script of Time Bandits apparently read: "He removes his helmet to reveal Sean Connery, or an actor of equal but cheaper status". He was pretty good in Marnie, one of Hitchcock's more unusual offerings.

As for the other Bonds, Timothy Dalton has turned into a very fine actor and although nothing has been as high profile as Bond, he's been good in everything I've seen him in.

 

[stephec]

If I remember correctly the original script of Time Bandits apparently read: "He removes his helmet to reveal Sean Connery, or an actor of equal but cheaper status". He was pretty good in Marnie, one of Hitchcock's more unusual offerings.

As for the other Bonds, Timothy Dalton has turned into a very fine actor and although nothing has been as high profile as Bond, he's been good in everything I've seen him in.

He was good in Hot Fuzz. 😄

 

[matticus]

Come on then, Barry Norman, what do you think made the Bond films memorable?

I reckon it's stuff like the stunts, always performed in Bond's immaculate grey suit, the opening jingle just before Bond fires the single shot, the theme song, the Bond girl, the Bond car, the Bond villain, and so on.

Even some of the stories were quite strong, although that was never the series's strongest point.

Amongst all that lot there's really not much room for an actor to showcase his talents.

Connery knew it, which is why he quit playing Bond early to prove himself in more challenging roles.

Sure, it's not a challenging role - but many many people could make an arse of it. And I think you'd struggle to find a film critic that says casting/actors are irrelevant!

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Comment I saw - "Without Connery in Dr No, there would have been no Bond franchise"

 

[matticus]

Apparently Fleming really disliked his performance!
(Wonder how many hit movies he produced ... )

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Apparently Fleming really disliked his performance!
(Wonder how many hit movies he produced ... )

Wiki says -

At a muscular 6'2", Connery was initially met with disapproval from Fleming, who believed he was an overgrown stuntman lacking the finesse and elegance to play James Bond; he envisaged a suave actor, such as David Niven, playing the role. Producer Albert R. Broccoli—known to all as Cubby—disagreed with Fleming's view, later commenting that "I wanted a ballsy guy ... put a bit of veneer over that tough Scottish hide and you've got Fleming's Bond instead of all the mincing p**fs we had applying for the job".

 

[matticus]

The above post MAY contain language that was considered acceptable at the time.

 

[Pale Rider]

And I think you'd struggle to find a film critic that says casting/actors are irrelevant!

Which is why I did not say that.

I said who played Bond is largely irrelevant.

Any actor who looks good in - and out - of a grey suit could do it.

That must be true, because that is what happened.

Bond is a franchise, the series has remained popular for the best part of 50 years without Connery.

Remarkable, and without equal in the film industry.

Connery's reputation as a fine, award winning actor is based on his roles post Bond, which, as I said, is why he quit the role - to gain critical acclaim and the acclaim of his peers.

The fact the series thrives with such a large number of different Bonds indicates the relative lack of importance of who plays the role.

On the contrary, the occasional change of leading man has helped keep the series fresh in the eyes of the public.

Connery had a good trot, but so did Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig.

George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton made fewer Bond films, but they were just as popular as all the rest.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Lazenby) is probably one of the better remembered Bond films.

I think the only turkey in the series is Moonraker (Moore).

But no one says all post-Connery Bond films are rubbish, which they would if he was especially central to the success of the character and series of films.

If you like critics, Skyfall (Craig) won more awards than all the Connery Bond films put together.

 

[matticus]

Which is why I did not say that.

I said who played Bond is largely irrelevant.

Any actor who looks good in - and out - of a grey suit could do it.

That must be true, because that is what happened.

Bond is a franchise, the series has remained popular for the best part of 50 years without Connery.

Remarkable, and without equal in the film industry.

Connery's reputation as a fine, award winning actor is based on his roles post Bond, which, as I said, is why he quit the role - to gain critical acclaim and the acclaim of his peers.

The fact the series thrives with such a large number of different Bonds indicates the relative lack of importance of who plays the role.

On the contrary, the occasional change of leading man has helped keep the series fresh in the eyes of the public.

Connery had a good trot, but so did Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig.

George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton made fewer Bond films, but they were just as popular as all the rest.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Lazenby) is probably one of the better remembered Bond films.

I think the only turkey in the series is Moonraker (Moore).

But no one says all post-Connery Bond films are rubbish, which they would if he was especially central to the success of the character and series of films.

If you like critics, Skyfall (Craig) won more awards than all the Connery Bond films put together.

These things are all subjective, but I suggest you review the fuss that was made over Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher!

 

[Pale Rider]

These things are all subjective, but I suggest you review the fuss that was made over Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher!

The link to who plays Bond is beyond me, although I suppose in both cases there are complaints of the film character being at variance with the books.

I've not read any of the books, but my view is both Connery and Cruise did an excellent job of acting in the respective films.

 

[matticus]

If I may give you a tip, I found the couple of Reacher books I've read, much more digestible than the Fleming ones! (This probably marks me down several points on the CC Reading Taste Test ) [that's the verb, not the town]

I still think Dr No would have been very poor with Seth Rogen in the lead, but I'm prepared to agree-to-disagree ...

 

[swee'pea99]

The Untouchables is a very very good film, and showed just how good an actor Connery was.
There is also a film made in 1965 called The Hill. He is very good in that also.

Excellent films the both of them. I think my favourite Connery performance was in a film you pretty much never hear of called Robin and Marion, where he plays a grizzled old returnee from the crusades who meets up with an also ageing but still breathtaking Audrey Hepburn as Lady, née Maid, Marion.

complaints of the film character being at variance with the books.

I've not read any of the books, but my view is both Connery and Cruise did an excellent job of acting in the respective films.

I remember reading that Jimmy McGovern wrote Cracker with the main character, Fitz, envisaged as a small, wiry guy. The producers said they had just the man for the job: Robbie Coltrane! McGovern later said that once he'd achieved the necessary mindshift, Coltrane was brilliant in the part. Like any great actor* he made the character his own.



*Well, any great actor other than The Duke, who makes every character into John Wayne.